6014465 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LFAB 3 GE 15 9789027288011 06 10.1075/lfab.3 00 EA E133 10 01 JB code LFAB 02 JB code 1877-6531 02 3.00 01 02 Language Faculty and Beyond Language Faculty and Beyond 01 01 Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars 1 B01 01 JB code 647115782 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University 01 eng 11 315 03 03 xii 03 00 301 03 24 JB code LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB code LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB code LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 10 LAN009000 12 CFK 01 06 02 00 Includes papers that take on the challenge of defining exactly what a 'crash' is and what a 'crash-proof grammar' would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a 'crash-proof grammar' is biolinguistically appealing. 03 00 The Minimalist Program has advanced a research program that builds the design of human language from conceptual necessity. Seminal proposals by Frampton & Gutmann (1999, 2000, 2002) introduced the notion that an ideal syntactic theory should be ‘crash-proof’. Such a version of the Minimalist Program (or any other linguistic theory) would not permit syntactic operations to produce structures that ‘crash’. There have, however, been some recent developments in Minimalism – especially those that approach linguistic theory from a biolinguistic perspective (cf. Chomsky 2005 et seq.) – that have called the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ into serious question. The papers in this volume take on the daunting challenge of defining exactly what a ‘crash’ is and what a ‘crash-proof grammar’ would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ is biolinguistically appealing. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/lfab.3.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027208200.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027208200.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/lfab.3.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/lfab.3.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/lfab.3.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/lfab.3.hb.png 01 01 JB code lfab.3.00pre 06 10.1075/lfab.3.00pre ix ix 1 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Preface & Acknowledgments Preface & Acknowledgments 01 01 JB code lfab.3.00loc 06 10.1075/lfab.3.00loc xi xi 1 Miscellaneous 2 01 04 List of contributors List of contributors 01 01 JB code lfab.3.01put 06 10.1075/lfab.3.01put 1 12 12 Article 3 01 04 Exploring crash-proof grammars Exploring crash-proof grammars 01 04 An introduction An introduction 1 A01 01 JB code 455128363 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam Pennsylvania State University 01 01 JB code lfab.3.p1 06 10.1075/lfab.3.02oua 13 84 72 Section header 4 01 04 Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar 01 01 JB code lfab.3.02oua 06 10.1075/lfab.3.02oua 15 30 16 Article 5 01 04 Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax 1 A01 01 JB code 305128364 Hamid Ouali Ouali, Hamid Hamid Ouali University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee 01 01 JB code lfab.3.03car 06 10.1075/lfab.3.03car 31 58 28 Article 6 01 04 Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features 1 A01 01 JB code 617128365 Vicki Carstens Carstens, Vicki Vicki Carstens University of Missouri – Columbia 01 01 JB code lfab.3.04sig 06 10.1075/lfab.3.04sig 59 86 28 Article 7 01 04 The Empty Left Edge Condition The Empty Left Edge Condition 1 A01 01 JB code 10128366 Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Sigur∂sson, Halldór Ármann Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Lund University 2 A01 01 JB code 77128367 Joan Maling Maling, Joan Joan Maling Brandeis University 01 01 JB code lfab.3.p2 06 10.1075/lfab.3.05ott 87 298 212 Section header 8 01 04 Part II The crash-proof debate Part II The crash-proof debate 01 01 JB code lfab.3.05ott 06 10.1075/lfab.3.05ott 89 104 16 Article 9 01 04 Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG 1 A01 01 JB code 533128368 Dennis Ott Ott, Dennis Dennis Ott Department of Linguistics, Harvard University 01 01 JB code lfab.3.06boe 06 10.1075/lfab.3.06boe 105 124 20 Article 10 01 04 A tale of two minimalisms A tale of two minimalisms 01 04 Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative 1 A01 01 JB code 863128369 Cedric Boeckx Boeckx, Cedric Cedric Boeckx ICREA/UAB 01 01 JB code lfab.3.07eps 06 10.1075/lfab.3.07eps 125 142 18 Article 11 01 04 Uninterpretable features Uninterpretable features 01 04 What are they and what do they do? What are they and what do they do? 1 A01 01 JB code 256128370 Samuel David Epstein Epstein, Samuel David Samuel David Epstein 2 A01 01 JB code 434128371 Hisatsugu Kitahara Kitahara, Hisatsugu Hisatsugu Kitahara 3 A01 01 JB code 550128372 T. Daniel Seely Seely, T. Daniel T. Daniel Seely 01 01 JB code lfab.3.08put 06 10.1075/lfab.3.08put 143 166 24 Article 12 01 04 Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism 1 A01 01 JB code 78128411 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam 2 A01 01 JB code 734128412 Thomas Stroik Stroik, Thomas Thomas Stroik 01 01 JB code lfab.3.09sur 06 10.1075/lfab.3.09sur 167 212 46 Article 13 01 04 Toward a strongly derivational syntax Toward a strongly derivational syntax 1 A01 01 JB code 41128413 Balázs Surányi Surányi, Balázs Balázs Surányi 01 01 JB code lfab.3.10leu 06 10.1075/lfab.3.10leu 213 244 32 Article 14 01 04 On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars 1 A01 01 JB code 175128373 Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung Leung, Tommi Tsz-Cheung Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung United Arab Emirates University 01 01 JB code lfab.3.11bro 06 10.1075/lfab.3.11bro 245 268 24 Article 15 01 04 Crash-proof syntax and filters Crash-proof syntax and filters 1 A01 01 JB code 29128374 Hans Broekhuis Broekhuis, Hans Hans Broekhuis Meertens Institute 2 A01 01 JB code 239128375 Ralf Vogel Vogel, Ralf Ralf Vogel University of Bielefeld 01 01 JB code lfab.3.12cha 06 10.1075/lfab.3.12cha 269 298 30 Article 16 01 04 Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar 1 A01 01 JB code 567128376 Rui P. Chaves Chaves, Rui P. Rui P. Chaves Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo – SUNY 01 01 JB code lfab.3.17ind 06 10.1075/lfab.3.17ind 299 301 3 Miscellaneous 17 01 04 Index Index 01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20100915 C 2010 John Benjamins Publishing Company D 2010 John Benjamins Publishing Company 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027208200 WORLD 03 01 JB 17 Google 03 https://play.google.com/store/books 21 01 00 Unqualified price 00 99.00 EUR 01 00 Unqualified price 00 83.00 GBP 01 00 Unqualified price 00 149.00 USD 228008231 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LFAB 3 Hb 15 9789027208200 06 10.1075/lfab.3 13 2010018680 00 BB 01 245 mm 02 164 mm 08 720 gr 10 01 JB code LFAB 02 1877-6531 02 3.00 01 02 Language Faculty and Beyond Language Faculty and Beyond 01 01 Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars 1 B01 01 JB code 647115782 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/647115782 01 eng 11 315 03 03 xii 03 00 301 03 01 22 415 03 2010 P291 04 Grammar, Comparative and general--Syntax. 04 Generative grammar. 04 Minimalist theory (Linguistics) 10 LAN009000 12 CFK 24 JB code LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB code LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB code LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 01 06 02 00 Includes papers that take on the challenge of defining exactly what a 'crash' is and what a 'crash-proof grammar' would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a 'crash-proof grammar' is biolinguistically appealing. 03 00 The Minimalist Program has advanced a research program that builds the design of human language from conceptual necessity. Seminal proposals by Frampton & Gutmann (1999, 2000, 2002) introduced the notion that an ideal syntactic theory should be ‘crash-proof’. Such a version of the Minimalist Program (or any other linguistic theory) would not permit syntactic operations to produce structures that ‘crash’. There have, however, been some recent developments in Minimalism – especially those that approach linguistic theory from a biolinguistic perspective (cf. Chomsky 2005 et seq.) – that have called the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ into serious question. The papers in this volume take on the daunting challenge of defining exactly what a ‘crash’ is and what a ‘crash-proof grammar’ would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ is biolinguistically appealing. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/lfab.3.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027208200.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027208200.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/lfab.3.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/lfab.3.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/lfab.3.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/lfab.3.hb.png 01 01 JB code lfab.3.00pre 06 10.1075/lfab.3.00pre ix ix 1 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Preface & Acknowledgments Preface & Acknowledgments 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.00loc 06 10.1075/lfab.3.00loc xi xi 1 Miscellaneous 2 01 04 List of contributors List of contributors 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.01put 06 10.1075/lfab.3.01put 1 12 12 Article 3 01 04 Exploring crash-proof grammars Exploring crash-proof grammars 01 04 An introduction An introduction 1 A01 01 JB code 455128363 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam Pennsylvania State University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/455128363 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.p1 06 10.1075/lfab.3.02oua 13 84 72 Section header 4 01 04 Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.02oua 06 10.1075/lfab.3.02oua 15 30 16 Article 5 01 04 Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax 1 A01 01 JB code 305128364 Hamid Ouali Ouali, Hamid Hamid Ouali University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/305128364 01 eng 03 00

Frampton & Guttmann (2002) argue that a language design that assumes “crashing derivations” would seem to be less computationally efficient than a design which outputs only convergent derivations. Therefore, they advocate a “crash-proof” syntax which requires constraining all the computational operations. This paper makes a distinction between a fatal crash/strict crash and non-fatal crash/soft crash. I will argue that in a model with Feature Inheritance (Chomsky 2000, 2001 and 2004), a mechanism that supersedes Agree, seemingly non-convergent derivations can be salvaged as long every mechanism in the grammar that’s available is exhausted. I argue, given data from Tamazight Berber, that the three logical possibilities of Feature Inheritance namely DONATE, KEEP, and SHARE, proposed in Ouali (2006, 2008), and whose application is ranked with KEEP applying only if DONATE fails, and SHARE applying only of KEEP fails, despite requiring seemingly different derivations can be accounted for within a less strict crash-proof syntax.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.03car 06 10.1075/lfab.3.03car 31 58 28 Article 6 01 04 Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features 1 A01 01 JB code 617128365 Vicki Carstens Carstens, Vicki Vicki Carstens University of Missouri – Columbia 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/617128365 01 eng 03 00

I argue that grammatical gender is semantically empty but intrinsically valued, so the strict linkage between uninterpretable and unvalued in Chomsky (2001) cannot be correct. I then demonstrate that gender is infinitely reusable as an “ activity” feature; in contrast, abstract Case activates a DP for just one Agree relation. This asymmetry suggests that valuation via Agree causes goal deactivation, and that deactivation is not necessary for every uninterpretable feature (uF). I accordingly analyze deactivation as arising from PF illegibility of multiple values for a single feature. Agree relations value Case, but never value nominal gender, so the legibility problem does not arise. I demonstrate that in Bantu, adjunction of N to D makes gender accessible to all probes outside DP. This and the reusability of gender as an activity feature leads to a cluster of systematic contrasts between Bantu and Indo-European languages: Bantu DPs A-move much more freely than Indo-European DPs, and value iterating subject agreement. The facts thus demonstrate that the internal syntax of DP impacts its feature matrix; it is not the case that a DP automatically inherits all f-features of its subparts, as syntactic theory generally assumes. Finally, I illustrate that Bantu C and T can agree with different expressions, casting doubt on the Feature Inheritance approach to uF in Chomsky (2007, 2008) and Richards (2007). The facts of grammatical gender argue that valued uF Transfer to the Conceptual-Intentional Interface without inducing crashes.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.04sig 06 10.1075/lfab.3.04sig 59 86 28 Article 7 01 04 The Empty Left Edge Condition The Empty Left Edge Condition 1 A01 01 JB code 10128366 Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Sigur∂sson, Halldór Ármann Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Lund University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/10128366 2 A01 01 JB code 77128367 Joan Maling Maling, Joan Joan Maling Brandeis University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/77128367 01 eng 03 00

Argument drop is commonly subject to the Empty Left Edge Condition, ELEC, requiring that the left edge of the clause not be spelled out. ELEC can be explained in terms of minimality, as an intervention effect (blocking context-linking of the null-argument). We argue that sensitivity to this effect is the most important ‘pro drop parametric’ factor and that there are no inherent or lexical differences between ‘different types’ of null-arguments. However, we also present striking evidence from Icelandic that emptiness conditions of this sort are operative in PF, a conclusion that suggests that much of ‘syntax’ in the traditional sense is actually morphosyntax or ‘PF syntax’, invisible to the semantic interface. If so, derivational crashes may occur (in the PF derivation), even though narrow syntax itself is crash-proof.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.p2 06 10.1075/lfab.3.05ott 87 298 212 Section header 8 01 04 Part II The crash-proof debate Part II The crash-proof debate 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.05ott 06 10.1075/lfab.3.05ott 89 104 16 Article 9 01 04 Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG 1 A01 01 JB code 533128368 Dennis Ott Ott, Dennis Dennis Ott Department of Linguistics, Harvard University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/533128368 01 eng 03 00

It is argued that the notions “well-formedness” and “grammaticality,” inspired by formal-language theory, are not necessarily relevant for the study of natural language. The assumption that a [± grammatical] distinction exists, i.e. that I-language generates only certain structures but not others, is empirically questionable and presumably requires a richly structured UG. Some aspects of “crash-proof” models of syntax that assume such a distinction are discussed and contrasted with an alternative proposal (the Minimalist Program as pursued by Chomsky), which dispenses entirely with grammaticality, allowing syntax to generate freely. The latter program aims not at distinguishing “grammatical” from “ungrammatical” sentences, but at providing a true theory of the mechanisms that assign interpretations to structures at the interfaces.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.06boe 06 10.1075/lfab.3.06boe 105 124 20 Article 10 01 04 A tale of two minimalisms A tale of two minimalisms 01 04 Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative 1 A01 01 JB code 863128369 Cedric Boeckx Boeckx, Cedric Cedric Boeckx ICREA/UAB 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/863128369 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.07eps 06 10.1075/lfab.3.07eps 125 142 18 Article 11 01 04 Uninterpretable features Uninterpretable features 01 04 What are they and what do they do? What are they and what do they do? 1 A01 01 JB code 256128370 Samuel David Epstein Epstein, Samuel David Samuel David Epstein 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/256128370 2 A01 01 JB code 434128371 Hisatsugu Kitahara Kitahara, Hisatsugu Hisatsugu Kitahara 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/434128371 3 A01 01 JB code 550128372 T. Daniel Seely Seely, T. Daniel T. Daniel Seely 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/550128372 01 eng 03 00

This paper consists of four sections. Section 1 identifies an important unclarity regarding the central concept “crash” and suggests a way to rectify it. Section 2 reveals a pervasive empirical problem confronting Chomsky’s (2007, 2008) attractively deductive valuation-transfer analysis. Section 3 offers a possible solution to this problem, reanalyzing the relation between uninterpretable features and Transfer. Section 4 presents a possible modification of a crash-proof aspect of the proposed model and briefly discusses a remaining question.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.08put 06 10.1075/lfab.3.08put 143 166 24 Article 12 01 04 Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism 1 A01 01 JB code 78128411 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/78128411 2 A01 01 JB code 734128412 Thomas Stroik Stroik, Thomas Thomas Stroik 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/734128412 01 eng 03 00

Survive-minimalism, as developed in Stroik (1999, 2009) and Putnam (2007), argues for a “crash-proof” syntax that is divested of all derivation-to-derivation and derivation-to-interface operations, such as Internal Merge and Transfer. In this paper, we extend our investigations into Minimalist syntax by showing how it is possible to derive crash-proof syntactic relations using the External Merge operation only. Central to our analysis is the active role that the Numeration plays in building derivations. We demonstrate here that our approach to syntactic relations is in many respects conceptually superior to other Minimalist alternatives, mainly on the grounds that our analysis offers a conceptually grounded explication of how a derivation begins, proceeds and (successfully) terminates without relying on theory-internal stipulations or labels. Contra Boeckx (this volume) and Ott (this volume), we conclude that an optimal design of the CHL is indeed ‘crash-proof’ after all.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.09sur 06 10.1075/lfab.3.09sur 167 212 46 Article 13 01 04 Toward a strongly derivational syntax Toward a strongly derivational syntax 1 A01 01 JB code 41128413 Balázs Surányi Surányi, Balázs Balázs Surányi 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/41128413 01 eng 03 00

Pointing out several undesirable consequences that Merge gives rise to in the mainstream minimalist approach to phrase structure, a strongly derivational model is developed that dispenses with the narrow syntactic Merge operation. Representations and recursion are argued to be properties of the interface components only, and to be absent from narrow syntax. Transfer, implementing feature checking in a local fashion and instructing interface computations, is defined as an iterative operation mapping Lexical Items to the interface components directly. In lack of Merge, narrow syntactic overgeneration is eliminated in toto, since no narrow syntactic representations are created and filtering of Transfer operations by the interface modules is immediate. It is argued that of the twin (overlapping) objectives of making syntax crash-proof and restricting syntactic overgeneration, only the latter is of relevance to the architecture of grammar.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.10leu 06 10.1075/lfab.3.10leu 213 244 32 Article 14 01 04 On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars 1 A01 01 JB code 175128373 Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung Leung, Tommi Tsz-Cheung Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung United Arab Emirates University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/175128373 01 eng 03 00

This paper looks at how the particular computational mechanism of Crash-Proof Syntax (CPS) (Frampton & Gutmann 1999, 2002) as an instantiation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) can be understood from the point of view of mathematical foundation that captured the spotlight among mathematicians during the nineteenth century. I claim that CPS can be analyzed as an analogy with Classical Peano’s Axioms that generate the theory of natural numbers. Instead of its computational efficiency, CPS is driven by the economization of axioms of formal systems. Further comparisons between syntax and natural numbers reveal that the central tenets of CPS can be defined mathematically on one hand, and highlight the significance of the ‘third factor’ as the design feature of language (Chomsky 2005) on the other hand.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.11bro 06 10.1075/lfab.3.11bro 245 268 24 Article 15 01 04 Crash-proof syntax and filters Crash-proof syntax and filters 1 A01 01 JB code 29128374 Hans Broekhuis Broekhuis, Hans Hans Broekhuis Meertens Institute 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/29128374 2 A01 01 JB code 239128375 Ralf Vogel Vogel, Ralf Ralf Vogel University of Bielefeld 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/239128375 01 eng 03 00

This article argues that even when it turns out to be possible to develop a crash-proof syntax that only generates well-formed objects that satisfy the interface conditions, filters on the output of the computational system will remain an essential ingredient of the theory of syntax. This does not necessarily imply, however, that the more general and modest aim of the crash-proof syntax project to limit the output of the derivational system to “objects that are well-formed and satisfy conditions imposed by the interface systems” should be dismissed as irrelevant.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.12cha 06 10.1075/lfab.3.12cha 269 298 30 Article 16 01 04 Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar 1 A01 01 JB code 567128376 Rui P. Chaves Chaves, Rui P. Rui P. Chaves Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo – SUNY 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/567128376 01 eng 03 00

The problem of obtaining a ‘crash-proof syntax’ has proved a difficult one for the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995). This paper argues that this difficulty stems from the intrinsic enumerative-generative nature of the framework, since model-theoretic frameworks of grammar are crash-proof by definition (Pullum & Scholtz, 2001). The latter do not describe, define or produce derivations, or any kind of linguistic structure for that matter. The production of linguistic structures is left to the performance modules (i.e. comprehension and production), which consult the competence grammar module in order to determine which structures are possible. On the other hand, it is clear that the construction of syntactic structure performed by performance modules can – and often does – go awry during production and comprehension. A proper general theory of language should account for such empirically motivated performance ‘crashes’. Because they lack the notion of derivation, model-theoretic frameworks are better suited to be integrated with theories of how linguistic structure is actually built in production and comprehension. It is unclear what psychological correlate, if any, there is to derivations and crashes in a Minimalist setting. It is known since Fodor et al. (1974) that a derivational theory of complexity has no psycholinguistic grounding. Model-theoretic frameworks do not have this problem precisely because they are process-neutral.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.17ind 06 10.1075/lfab.3.17ind 299 301 3 Miscellaneous 17 01 04 Index Index 01 eng
01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/lfab.3 Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20100915 C 2010 John Benjamins Publishing Company D 2010 John Benjamins Publishing Company 02 WORLD WORLD US CA MX 09 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 21 35 16 01 00 Unqualified price 02 JB 1 02 99.00 EUR 02 00 Unqualified price 02 83.00 01 Z 0 GBP GB US CA MX 01 01 JB 2 John Benjamins Publishing Company +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 21 35 16 01 00 Unqualified price 02 JB 1 02 149.00 USD
744008232 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LFAB 3 Eb 15 9789027288011 06 10.1075/lfab.3 00 EA E107 10 01 JB code LFAB 02 1877-6531 02 3.00 01 02 Language Faculty and Beyond Language Faculty and Beyond 11 01 JB code jbe-all 01 02 Full EBA collection (ca. 4,200 titles) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-all 01 02 Complete backlist (3,208 titles, 1967–2015) 05 02 Complete backlist (1967–2015) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-linguistics 01 02 Subject collection: Linguistics (2,773 titles, 1967–2015) 05 02 Linguistics (1967–2015) 01 01 Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars 1 B01 01 JB code 647115782 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/647115782 01 eng 11 315 03 03 xii 03 00 301 03 01 22 415 03 2010 P291 04 Grammar, Comparative and general--Syntax. 04 Generative grammar. 04 Minimalist theory (Linguistics) 10 LAN009000 12 CFK 24 JB code LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB code LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB code LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 01 06 02 00 Includes papers that take on the challenge of defining exactly what a 'crash' is and what a 'crash-proof grammar' would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a 'crash-proof grammar' is biolinguistically appealing. 03 00 The Minimalist Program has advanced a research program that builds the design of human language from conceptual necessity. Seminal proposals by Frampton & Gutmann (1999, 2000, 2002) introduced the notion that an ideal syntactic theory should be ‘crash-proof’. Such a version of the Minimalist Program (or any other linguistic theory) would not permit syntactic operations to produce structures that ‘crash’. There have, however, been some recent developments in Minimalism – especially those that approach linguistic theory from a biolinguistic perspective (cf. Chomsky 2005 et seq.) – that have called the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ into serious question. The papers in this volume take on the daunting challenge of defining exactly what a ‘crash’ is and what a ‘crash-proof grammar’ would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ is biolinguistically appealing. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/lfab.3.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027208200.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027208200.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/lfab.3.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/lfab.3.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/lfab.3.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/lfab.3.hb.png 01 01 JB code lfab.3.00pre 06 10.1075/lfab.3.00pre ix ix 1 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Preface & Acknowledgments Preface & Acknowledgments 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.00loc 06 10.1075/lfab.3.00loc xi xi 1 Miscellaneous 2 01 04 List of contributors List of contributors 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.01put 06 10.1075/lfab.3.01put 1 12 12 Article 3 01 04 Exploring crash-proof grammars Exploring crash-proof grammars 01 04 An introduction An introduction 1 A01 01 JB code 455128363 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam Pennsylvania State University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/455128363 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.p1 06 10.1075/lfab.3.02oua 13 84 72 Section header 4 01 04 Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.02oua 06 10.1075/lfab.3.02oua 15 30 16 Article 5 01 04 Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax 1 A01 01 JB code 305128364 Hamid Ouali Ouali, Hamid Hamid Ouali University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/305128364 01 eng 03 00

Frampton & Guttmann (2002) argue that a language design that assumes “crashing derivations” would seem to be less computationally efficient than a design which outputs only convergent derivations. Therefore, they advocate a “crash-proof” syntax which requires constraining all the computational operations. This paper makes a distinction between a fatal crash/strict crash and non-fatal crash/soft crash. I will argue that in a model with Feature Inheritance (Chomsky 2000, 2001 and 2004), a mechanism that supersedes Agree, seemingly non-convergent derivations can be salvaged as long every mechanism in the grammar that’s available is exhausted. I argue, given data from Tamazight Berber, that the three logical possibilities of Feature Inheritance namely DONATE, KEEP, and SHARE, proposed in Ouali (2006, 2008), and whose application is ranked with KEEP applying only if DONATE fails, and SHARE applying only of KEEP fails, despite requiring seemingly different derivations can be accounted for within a less strict crash-proof syntax.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.03car 06 10.1075/lfab.3.03car 31 58 28 Article 6 01 04 Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features 1 A01 01 JB code 617128365 Vicki Carstens Carstens, Vicki Vicki Carstens University of Missouri – Columbia 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/617128365 01 eng 03 00

I argue that grammatical gender is semantically empty but intrinsically valued, so the strict linkage between uninterpretable and unvalued in Chomsky (2001) cannot be correct. I then demonstrate that gender is infinitely reusable as an “ activity” feature; in contrast, abstract Case activates a DP for just one Agree relation. This asymmetry suggests that valuation via Agree causes goal deactivation, and that deactivation is not necessary for every uninterpretable feature (uF). I accordingly analyze deactivation as arising from PF illegibility of multiple values for a single feature. Agree relations value Case, but never value nominal gender, so the legibility problem does not arise. I demonstrate that in Bantu, adjunction of N to D makes gender accessible to all probes outside DP. This and the reusability of gender as an activity feature leads to a cluster of systematic contrasts between Bantu and Indo-European languages: Bantu DPs A-move much more freely than Indo-European DPs, and value iterating subject agreement. The facts thus demonstrate that the internal syntax of DP impacts its feature matrix; it is not the case that a DP automatically inherits all f-features of its subparts, as syntactic theory generally assumes. Finally, I illustrate that Bantu C and T can agree with different expressions, casting doubt on the Feature Inheritance approach to uF in Chomsky (2007, 2008) and Richards (2007). The facts of grammatical gender argue that valued uF Transfer to the Conceptual-Intentional Interface without inducing crashes.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.04sig 06 10.1075/lfab.3.04sig 59 86 28 Article 7 01 04 The Empty Left Edge Condition The Empty Left Edge Condition 1 A01 01 JB code 10128366 Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Sigur∂sson, Halldór Ármann Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Lund University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/10128366 2 A01 01 JB code 77128367 Joan Maling Maling, Joan Joan Maling Brandeis University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/77128367 01 eng 03 00

Argument drop is commonly subject to the Empty Left Edge Condition, ELEC, requiring that the left edge of the clause not be spelled out. ELEC can be explained in terms of minimality, as an intervention effect (blocking context-linking of the null-argument). We argue that sensitivity to this effect is the most important ‘pro drop parametric’ factor and that there are no inherent or lexical differences between ‘different types’ of null-arguments. However, we also present striking evidence from Icelandic that emptiness conditions of this sort are operative in PF, a conclusion that suggests that much of ‘syntax’ in the traditional sense is actually morphosyntax or ‘PF syntax’, invisible to the semantic interface. If so, derivational crashes may occur (in the PF derivation), even though narrow syntax itself is crash-proof.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.p2 06 10.1075/lfab.3.05ott 87 298 212 Section header 8 01 04 Part II The crash-proof debate Part II The crash-proof debate 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.05ott 06 10.1075/lfab.3.05ott 89 104 16 Article 9 01 04 Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG 1 A01 01 JB code 533128368 Dennis Ott Ott, Dennis Dennis Ott Department of Linguistics, Harvard University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/533128368 01 eng 03 00

It is argued that the notions “well-formedness” and “grammaticality,” inspired by formal-language theory, are not necessarily relevant for the study of natural language. The assumption that a [± grammatical] distinction exists, i.e. that I-language generates only certain structures but not others, is empirically questionable and presumably requires a richly structured UG. Some aspects of “crash-proof” models of syntax that assume such a distinction are discussed and contrasted with an alternative proposal (the Minimalist Program as pursued by Chomsky), which dispenses entirely with grammaticality, allowing syntax to generate freely. The latter program aims not at distinguishing “grammatical” from “ungrammatical” sentences, but at providing a true theory of the mechanisms that assign interpretations to structures at the interfaces.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.06boe 06 10.1075/lfab.3.06boe 105 124 20 Article 10 01 04 A tale of two minimalisms A tale of two minimalisms 01 04 Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative 1 A01 01 JB code 863128369 Cedric Boeckx Boeckx, Cedric Cedric Boeckx ICREA/UAB 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/863128369 01 eng 01 01 JB code lfab.3.07eps 06 10.1075/lfab.3.07eps 125 142 18 Article 11 01 04 Uninterpretable features Uninterpretable features 01 04 What are they and what do they do? What are they and what do they do? 1 A01 01 JB code 256128370 Samuel David Epstein Epstein, Samuel David Samuel David Epstein 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/256128370 2 A01 01 JB code 434128371 Hisatsugu Kitahara Kitahara, Hisatsugu Hisatsugu Kitahara 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/434128371 3 A01 01 JB code 550128372 T. Daniel Seely Seely, T. Daniel T. Daniel Seely 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/550128372 01 eng 03 00

This paper consists of four sections. Section 1 identifies an important unclarity regarding the central concept “crash” and suggests a way to rectify it. Section 2 reveals a pervasive empirical problem confronting Chomsky’s (2007, 2008) attractively deductive valuation-transfer analysis. Section 3 offers a possible solution to this problem, reanalyzing the relation between uninterpretable features and Transfer. Section 4 presents a possible modification of a crash-proof aspect of the proposed model and briefly discusses a remaining question.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.08put 06 10.1075/lfab.3.08put 143 166 24 Article 12 01 04 Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism 1 A01 01 JB code 78128411 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/78128411 2 A01 01 JB code 734128412 Thomas Stroik Stroik, Thomas Thomas Stroik 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/734128412 01 eng 03 00

Survive-minimalism, as developed in Stroik (1999, 2009) and Putnam (2007), argues for a “crash-proof” syntax that is divested of all derivation-to-derivation and derivation-to-interface operations, such as Internal Merge and Transfer. In this paper, we extend our investigations into Minimalist syntax by showing how it is possible to derive crash-proof syntactic relations using the External Merge operation only. Central to our analysis is the active role that the Numeration plays in building derivations. We demonstrate here that our approach to syntactic relations is in many respects conceptually superior to other Minimalist alternatives, mainly on the grounds that our analysis offers a conceptually grounded explication of how a derivation begins, proceeds and (successfully) terminates without relying on theory-internal stipulations or labels. Contra Boeckx (this volume) and Ott (this volume), we conclude that an optimal design of the CHL is indeed ‘crash-proof’ after all.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.09sur 06 10.1075/lfab.3.09sur 167 212 46 Article 13 01 04 Toward a strongly derivational syntax Toward a strongly derivational syntax 1 A01 01 JB code 41128413 Balázs Surányi Surányi, Balázs Balázs Surányi 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/41128413 01 eng 03 00

Pointing out several undesirable consequences that Merge gives rise to in the mainstream minimalist approach to phrase structure, a strongly derivational model is developed that dispenses with the narrow syntactic Merge operation. Representations and recursion are argued to be properties of the interface components only, and to be absent from narrow syntax. Transfer, implementing feature checking in a local fashion and instructing interface computations, is defined as an iterative operation mapping Lexical Items to the interface components directly. In lack of Merge, narrow syntactic overgeneration is eliminated in toto, since no narrow syntactic representations are created and filtering of Transfer operations by the interface modules is immediate. It is argued that of the twin (overlapping) objectives of making syntax crash-proof and restricting syntactic overgeneration, only the latter is of relevance to the architecture of grammar.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.10leu 06 10.1075/lfab.3.10leu 213 244 32 Article 14 01 04 On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars 1 A01 01 JB code 175128373 Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung Leung, Tommi Tsz-Cheung Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung United Arab Emirates University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/175128373 01 eng 03 00

This paper looks at how the particular computational mechanism of Crash-Proof Syntax (CPS) (Frampton & Gutmann 1999, 2002) as an instantiation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) can be understood from the point of view of mathematical foundation that captured the spotlight among mathematicians during the nineteenth century. I claim that CPS can be analyzed as an analogy with Classical Peano’s Axioms that generate the theory of natural numbers. Instead of its computational efficiency, CPS is driven by the economization of axioms of formal systems. Further comparisons between syntax and natural numbers reveal that the central tenets of CPS can be defined mathematically on one hand, and highlight the significance of the ‘third factor’ as the design feature of language (Chomsky 2005) on the other hand.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.11bro 06 10.1075/lfab.3.11bro 245 268 24 Article 15 01 04 Crash-proof syntax and filters Crash-proof syntax and filters 1 A01 01 JB code 29128374 Hans Broekhuis Broekhuis, Hans Hans Broekhuis Meertens Institute 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/29128374 2 A01 01 JB code 239128375 Ralf Vogel Vogel, Ralf Ralf Vogel University of Bielefeld 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/239128375 01 eng 03 00

This article argues that even when it turns out to be possible to develop a crash-proof syntax that only generates well-formed objects that satisfy the interface conditions, filters on the output of the computational system will remain an essential ingredient of the theory of syntax. This does not necessarily imply, however, that the more general and modest aim of the crash-proof syntax project to limit the output of the derivational system to “objects that are well-formed and satisfy conditions imposed by the interface systems” should be dismissed as irrelevant.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.12cha 06 10.1075/lfab.3.12cha 269 298 30 Article 16 01 04 Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar 1 A01 01 JB code 567128376 Rui P. Chaves Chaves, Rui P. Rui P. Chaves Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo – SUNY 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/567128376 01 eng 03 00

The problem of obtaining a ‘crash-proof syntax’ has proved a difficult one for the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995). This paper argues that this difficulty stems from the intrinsic enumerative-generative nature of the framework, since model-theoretic frameworks of grammar are crash-proof by definition (Pullum & Scholtz, 2001). The latter do not describe, define or produce derivations, or any kind of linguistic structure for that matter. The production of linguistic structures is left to the performance modules (i.e. comprehension and production), which consult the competence grammar module in order to determine which structures are possible. On the other hand, it is clear that the construction of syntactic structure performed by performance modules can – and often does – go awry during production and comprehension. A proper general theory of language should account for such empirically motivated performance ‘crashes’. Because they lack the notion of derivation, model-theoretic frameworks are better suited to be integrated with theories of how linguistic structure is actually built in production and comprehension. It is unclear what psychological correlate, if any, there is to derivations and crashes in a Minimalist setting. It is known since Fodor et al. (1974) that a derivational theory of complexity has no psycholinguistic grounding. Model-theoretic frameworks do not have this problem precisely because they are process-neutral.

01 01 JB code lfab.3.17ind 06 10.1075/lfab.3.17ind 299 301 3 Miscellaneous 17 01 04 Index Index 01 eng
01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/lfab.3 Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20100915 C 2010 John Benjamins Publishing Company D 2010 John Benjamins Publishing Company 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027208200 WORLD 09 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 https://jbe-platform.com 29 https://jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288011 21 01 00 Unqualified price 02 99.00 EUR 01 00 Unqualified price 02 83.00 GBP GB 01 00 Unqualified price 02 149.00 USD